Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 76

Thread: AMD R600 LLVM Back-End Called For Inclusion

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaemonFC View Post
    Saying you can only use it as part of Mesa does make it nonfree. It takes away my ability to use the software for any purpose, including putting it in other software.
    I think you really misunderstood what is written in that license. You can use the code in your personal project, if you write in the binary this sentence:
    + * "Uses Jimenez's MLAA. Copyright (C) 2010 by Jorge Jimenez, Belen Masia,
    + * Jose I. Echevarria, Fernando Navarro and Diego Gutierrez."
    I will try to explain to you why you can do anything with this piece of software.

    + * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
    + * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
    So you have to simply follow two conditions.

    + * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
    + * this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
    First condition like the first condition of 2-clause BSD license.

    + * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the following statement:
    + *
    + * "Uses Jimenez's MLAA. Copyright (C) 2010 by Jorge Jimenez, Belen Masia,
    + * Jose I. Echevarria, Fernando Navarro and Diego Gutierrez."
    Second condition like the second condition of 2-clause BSD license.

    + * Only for use in the Mesa project, this point 2 is filled by naming the
    + * technique Jimenez's MLAA in the Mesa config options.
    If your project is the Mesa project, then you can fill the second condition in another way, if you want. Period. It's an exception. My first language is italian and my english skills aren't so good, but trust me, this is free open source software.

    The second clause exceptions doesn't mean 'You can only use this code for Mesa', at least not in any language that I can understand.

    PS. If you speak other languages, I can try to explain to you this through private messages.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    export laws are only for export but releasing open-source software is NOT A EXPORT!

    for example "source-forge" the website if THEY upload this to "Iran" then the Export LAW hits.

    but the Export LAW hit NOT if someone release open-source in the USA.
    I'm guessing you haven't actually read the regs yet, right ?

    It's *really* not as simple as you claim.
    Last edited by bridgman; 03-28-2012 at 03:17 PM.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    I'm guessing you haven't actually read the regs yet, right ?

    It's *really* not as simple as you claim.
    it is so easy and if not the Constitutional Court is giving you right.

    but yes its much cheaper to not fight in Court.

    but "cheaper" do not mean this is "right"

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,458

    Default

    *bridgman has left the Q Continuum

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    *bridgman has left the Q Continuum
    LOL and only because the "Constitutional Court" gives you the "Final" answer of your Question.

    sure to know it "Finally" is very expensive

    this makes it simple for AMD Money weight more than "Right"

    in doubt to the accused is obsolete now the new version is:

    +++in doubt for the money+++

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    *bridgman has left the Q Continuum
    Bridgman and the lawyers that say I have to follow every possible export law in the world to use AMD software. This is a crock. No matter how you try to defend it, it will still be a crock. Can you just admit it's a total crock and fix the license?

    I'm subject to two major sets of laws. US federal laws and Indiana state laws. I don't care what the law is anywhere else and I shouldn't have to. If I find a loophole in the law that lets me circumvent it to help someone, AMD shouldn't close it by misusing their copyright.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaemonFC View Post
    Saying you can only use it as part of Mesa does make it nonfree.
    The license says no such thing.

    If you use it outside of Mesa, you get the standard modified BSD license.

    If you use it inside Mesa, then you get a non-standard modified BSD license with relaxed attribution requirements.

    Both cases are completely FSF-approved Free Software licenses. It's Free Software either way, and you can use it to your heart's desire.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    LOL and only because the "Constitutional Court" gives you the "Final" answer of your Question.
    You know that there's no such thing as the "Constitutional Court", right?

    Oh wait, it's Q.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    You know that there's no such thing as the "Constitutional Court", right?

    Oh wait, it's Q.
    there is no other word for it. in german "Verfassungsgericht"

    Verfassungsgericht=Constitutional Court its the highest Judicial review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review

    "The United States Constitution does not explicitly establish the power of judicial review. Rather, the power of judicial review has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.[1]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicia..._United_States

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    there is no other word for it. in german "Verfassungsgericht"

    Verfassungsgericht=Constitutional Court its the highest Judicial review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review

    "The United States Constitution does not explicitly establish the power of judicial review. Rather, the power of judicial review has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.[1]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicia..._United_States
    Wait, so Bridgman is supposed to fight American laws in a German court?

    /confused

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •